Foul by Watkins any worse than the one on Maddison?

[Jezzard 17]

Not disputing Watkins'' red card, but wasn''t the foul on Maddison worse? Watkins was going for the ball but had neither foot grounded and was reckless, although his opponent wasn''t hurt. However, the Van den Berg wasn''t even going for the ball meaning Maddison wasn''t aware of any challenge so couldn''t ride the impact and was injured. So in probability of being injured, an off the ball foul is worse. So shouldn''t all off the ball fouls be red cards. After all, as it''s deliberate so the perpetrator can''t claim to be unlucky.

[lake district canary 4,836]

The foul on Maddison was as cynical as they come.  Right near the beginning of the game and was he even booked?  Watkins'' red card was less cynical in that it due to frustration at losing the ball, not the desire to hurt a player, which van den Berg''s foul was clearly meant to do. 

[Rogue Baboon 0]

What I dont get is the length of ban Watkins will get.

I dont doubt the red card, as he has stretched it was turned into a 2 footed tackle and in the modern game tackles like that will be a red card. Harsh, but thats todays game.

But a 3 game ban for a mistimed tackle? Thats the same as a deliberate elbow, stamp, kick or headbutt, and 3 times longer than a deliberate handball on the line or pulling somebody down when through on goal?

[lincsy88 106]

Couldn''t agree with your more Rogue, I thought the red card was a little bit harsh as his feet didn''t leave the ground and the challenge was in their penalty box in the 90th minutes but studs showing in the modern game means a straight red. Three game ban will be terribly harsh, should the club appeal? I don''t think it would get us anywhere though.

[Woodman 92]

The ref missed so many off the ball situations and could easily have given a second yellow to 2 or 3 Reading defenders. Wes, Maddison, Murphy were all victims of persistent fouling.

No chance of an appeal, especially with Watkins ''admitting'' things on social media. 3 match ban is what a straight red gets, I''m afraid. Easy to say he should have thought of that, but in the heat of the moment, he just lunged into the tackle with his studs up.

The tackle on Maddison which resulted in him going off was as bad in my opinion. I noticed he had ice on it after the game, so I hope its not a serious one.

[Guest]

I think there was a bit of frustration in Watkins tackle. It was awful, stupid and deserves a three game ban.

The ref got that right but he virtually got everything else wrong. How two of theirs weren''t off for second yellows by just sheer numbers of fouls is beyond comprehension.

They were cynical and were deliberate and deserved to walk.

[Baldyboy 1]

Sorry but this thread shows how so many people are watching games with yellow and green glasses on and are actually quite clueless to the actual laws of the game!

The foul on Maddison was not cynical at all, it was just clumsy and didn’t warrant any card just a talking to which was done by the ref at the time.

As for Watkins foul it was an ankle breaker and deserved the red card and 3 match ban he now gets.

Before people slate me for being anti City, I ain’t, what I am is an ex referee who keeps up to date with the laws still. Also, I thought Tim Robinson had a decent game as did his mentor, who is a personal friend of mine who actually taught me and reffed at the top of the game

[Feedthewolf 5,885]

I''m a qualified ref myself Baldy, and you''re absolutely right about Watkins. I wouldn''t say the tackle on Maddison was ''clumsy'', he had clearly been identified as a danger man and I feel the player knew full well that he could injure Maddison. Not as bad as Watkins'' challenge, but certainly worthy of a caution in my opinion.

[It's Character Forming 1,204]

Also how the ref didn''t give a second yellow to any of their player escapes me - plenty of cynical/repeated fouls towards the end of the game which would have got a yellow if their player wasn''t already on a yellow card.

 

Can''t complain about the Watkins red, hopefully he''ll learn the lesson in his suspension, but they should have been down to 10 men by then anyway.

[Hansterbubble 55]

I think the question for me was whether the two tackles in question were unsporting and therefore correctly punished by a yellow card or serious foul play and therefore punished with a red.

I''m not a referee but I though that a yellow card was probably the right call for the challenge on Maddison. It was more than clumsy, it was cynical and nasty, but I think that most referees would have reached for the yellow card.

I thought the red card for Watkins was also probably the right call or perhaps more accurately that it was a reasonable decision. It''s the sort of challenge that referees tend to punish more severely even if it is less cynical.

I do agree that there seemed to be quite a bit of persistent fouling going on, which the ref seemed to ignore. But after a quick look through the BBC live text it doesn''t seem quite as prevalent as I remember. But I am biased, so I guess my yellow and green specs might have magnified this a little at the time!!

[lake district canary 4,836]

[quote user="Baldyboy"]

The foul on Maddison was not cynical at all, it was just clumsy and didn’t warrant any card just a talking to which was done by the ref at the time.[/quote]It was as cynical as they come. It was early in the game and even the commentator said the defender had put his marker on Maddison - in other words trying to soften him up. It was a blatant and intentional foul from behind as Maddison was running away from him. No excuses.

[hogesar 10,770]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Baldyboy"]

The foul on Maddison was not cynical at all, it was just clumsy and didn’t warrant any card just a talking to which was done by the ref at the time.[/quote]It was as cynical as they come. It was early in the game and even the commentator said the defender had put his marker on Maddison - in other words trying to soften him up. It was a blatant and intentional foul from behind as Maddison was running away from him. No excuses.

[/quote]

Yeahp. 20 years ago no-one would have even given it a second look but in today''s game it''s a yellow all day long.

[Jim Smith 2,610]

It was no worse, no, but it looked a lot worse because it was one of those ones where he''d slightly lost control of the ball so went flying in.

If anything the one on Madders was nastier and I think that should have been a red but in the context of the modern game I don''t think we can complain hugely about Watkins going off.

[Baldyboy 1]

You really are clueless LDC, a cynical tackle it definitely wasn’t and as for thinking it was worse than Watkins tackle shows just how clueless you really are

Maybe you ought to look at the two challenges again and see which one was more dangerous, but then again you did think Dorrans was a left winger when he was here

[Baldyboy 1]

Just watched both incidents again and have to say how anyone thinks the foul on Maddison is worse than Watkins foul is beyond me! There was never any danger of Maddison getting seriously hurt, although maybe a yellow should have been awarded, whereas Watkins could quite easily have ended Gunters career with that challenge, it was horrendous!

[Jim Smith 2,610]

Never any danger of his getting hurt? The bloke comes down with his studs on Maddison''s achilles - I would say every chance of him getting hurt. are you sure you are looking at the right tackle Baldy?

[lake district canary 4,836]

[quote user="Baldyboy"]You really are clueless LDC, a cynical tackle it definitely wasn’t and as for thinking it was worse than Watkins tackle shows just how clueless you really are

Maybe you ought to look at the two challenges again and see which one was more dangerous, but then again you did think Dorrans was a left winger when he was here[/quote]Ah yes, the old "clueless" line. Nice.Regarding the football, it depends on your point of view.  If you think Watkin''s was premeditated then you would have a point, point it plainly wasn''t, it was borne out of frustration at losing the ball.   The reading defender''s foul was as premiditated as they come, that is why it was at least a  bookable offence, if not a red.  And did I say it was a worse foul? I don''t think so as imo Watkins can have no complaints, I said that the motivation behnd the two fouls was different - the defender deserved to be at least booked for his foul because it was intentional, designed to hurt and yes, cynical. Oh and give the Dorrans stuff a rest, it is old news and I never said he was a left winger anyway, only that he could do a job there if required. [:P]

[City 2nd 193]

The difference.

The foul by Watkins he jumped in, foot up, studs showing!

The foul on Maddison - the opposition player didn''t.

Red card all day in the first instance. Not a red card in the second!

[Woodman 92]

LDC - correct me if I''m wrong, are you talking about the foul on Maddison in the second half, which let to his substitution or the one very early in the first half where he had to jump out of the way to protect himself? I agree, this was a cynical one where the Reading player set out to ''put a marker'' on Maddison (and didn''t succeed!). Had this happened later in the game, it would have resulted in a yellow.

I think the one most of us are talking about (in comparison to Markey''s) is the one in the second half.

[Bill 1,788]

The bottom line is, going in with studs showing will invariably lead to a red card.Argue against that ''law'' by all means, but that is how it is. It is not something that Watkins was not aware of.I can only wonder what our fans reaction would have been had it had been the same tackle, at the same time, against us just outside the opposition with us 2-1.Yes, the decision looks harsh, but it was NOT outside of the current interpretations of the laws.

[Baldyboy 1]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Baldyboy"]You really are clueless LDC, a cynical tackle it definitely wasn’t and as for thinking it was worse than Watkins tackle shows just how clueless you really are

Maybe you ought to look at the two challenges again and see which one was more dangerous, but then again you did think Dorrans was a left winger when he was here[/quote]Ah yes, the old "clueless" line. Nice.Regarding the football, it depends on your point of view.  If you think Watkin''s was premeditated then you would have a point, point it plainly wasn''t, it was borne out of frustration at losing the ball.   The reading defender''s foul was as premiditated as they come, that is why it was at least a  bookable offence, if not a red.  And did I say it was a worse foul? I don''t think so as imo Watkins can have no complaints, I said that the motivation behnd the two fouls was different - the defender deserved to be at least booked for his foul because it was intentional, designed to hurt and yes, cynical. Oh and give the Dorrans stuff a rest, it is old news and I never said he was a left winger anyway, only that he could do a job there if required. [:P][/quote]

I don’t think either was pre meditated but it’s about how dangerous the tackles were, IMO Watkins was reckless whereas VDB was just stupid, I don’t think either wanted to hurt the other player deliberately in truth.

As for getting peed off about the Dorrans comment maybe it will teach you to think about what you post before actually typing it, just a thought as you do come out with some strange comments

[Branston Pickle 4,151]

I don''t think people are particularly quibbling about Watkins getting a red, more that Reading players on a yellow could/should have seen another card well beforehand, if only under the ''persistent fouling'' rule (one I saw invoked only at the weekend). Ultimately, with Nelson due back we will hopefully not miss Narkey too much.

[Branston Pickle 4,151]

*Marley

[lake district canary 4,836]

Not peed off, baldyboy, just putting you right.  As for which tackle people are referring to, I''m talking about the totally cynical first half one which did some damage and as the match wore on it was plain his ankle was hurting - the second half tackle just made it worse.

[HertsCanary93 223]

Watkins'' tackle was reckless, undisciplined and deserved a red. When you are 1-up in the closing minutes of an away game, putting in that kind of tackle by the oppositions corner flag is just stupid.

Can''t really remember the tackle on Madison, has anyone got a link?

[Yellowfuture 71]

Would like to be a fly on the wall when he met up with Chris Gunter in the Welsh squad today.

Does the ban from the red prevent him playing for Wales or does it only start for Championship games?

[Feedthewolf 5,885]

[quote user="Yellowfuture"]Would like to be a fly on the wall when he met up with Chris Gunter in the Welsh squad today.

Does the ban from the red prevent him playing for Wales or does it only start for Championship games?[/quote]It''ll only be a domestic ban, won''t affect his international involvement.

[AJ 1,359]

A very silly challenge from Marley considering how long was left, just a bit of frustration from losing the ball - certainly no malice intended I''m sure but a definite red all day long.

As for the one on Madders, I can''t believe the ref didn''t produce a card. The frustrating thing that it simply doesn''t matter if the foul is in the first 30 seconds or the last 30 seconds, a foul is a foul and that certainly deserved a card. Probably a yellow more than a red though.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="Baldyboy"]Sorry but this thread shows how so many people are watching games with yellow and green glasses on and are actually quite clueless to the actual laws of the game!

The foul on Maddison was not cynical at all, it was just clumsy and didn’t warrant any card just a talking to which was done by the ref at the time.

As for Watkins foul it was an ankle breaker and deserved the red card and 3 match ban he now gets.

Before people slate me for being anti City, I ain’t, what I am is an ex referee who keeps up to date with the laws still. Also, I thought Tim Robinson had a decent game as did his mentor, who is a personal friend of mine who actually taught me and reffed at the top of the game[/quote]

Patronising twaddle

[Just Dan 10]

I have to agree with Baldyboy, the mentoring of Tim Robinson was superb. If you want to see textbook mentoring, just watch the Reading game back. Pretty sure that it will be held up as the gold standard for years to come.

On a serious note, Van de Berg let Maddison know he was there in the very first minute. It was as cynical and premeditated as they come and, in my opinion, should have seen yellow. Interestingly, Van de Berg should have also seen red in the game last season (a challenge quite similar to Watkins one, on Naismith). The one on his heel was also cynical and he should have seen yellow again.

Weak referee, who out of the 13 players that he has sent off this season, only 2 have been from the home side.

If that is a decent game for the ref, I would want to see a poor one. It doesn''t surprise me that a ref can''t distinguish between a clumsy tackle and a cynical one.